Comments On: Savage Love
by Dan Savagehttp://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/savage-love/Content?oid=2265401
Comments On: Savage Love
by Dan Savageen-usCopyright 2016 Portland Mercury. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Portland Mercury readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Portland Mercury.webmaster@portlandmercury.com (Portland Mercury Webmaster)Fri, 09 Dec 2016 00:00:01 -0800Fri, 09 Dec 2016 11:15:00 -0800Foundationhttp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rsstH\VF5!V+00HY?jgK7@iA
Hence why you had to asterisk your union with a contract that benefits you, the female. Marriages do not typically benefit men. Note that YOU are the one who appended "PERIOD." to your statement, not me. If LOVE is all it takes, then marriage is simply not necessary.

"It is often hard to understand why some people want something you take for granted but sneer at."
Doesn't seem all that strange or hard to understand. We're in an advice column comment section, and we're discussing relationships. It is my OPINION that marriages are superfluous and damaging to most parties, both long term socially and financially. You can claim a comittment, or you can say I'm not comitting, but Marriage and/or legal bindings have no rational place in that union. They simply don't keep people committed, they don't enforce any contract, and they certainly don't keep people happy.

"What is important is that some people in this country can do something (i.e. marry) and some cannot, based purely on religious ethos, not any rational consideration."
There are hundreds of examples of this. Many people can do things others can not. I equate the inability to not being able to marry along the lines of not being able to enter a private church because I'm not a member. The institution of marriage is a flaw, so why would people WANT to be a part of it?
Posted by NIG GER]]>
Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:08:36 -0800Portland Mercury
tH\VF5!V+00HY?jgK7@iA
It is often hard to understand why some people want something you take for granted but sneer at. It's not really that important whether you think marriage is a grand old institution. What is important is that some people in this country can do something (i.e. marry) and some cannot, based purely on religious ethos, not any rational consideration. Being able to go into a bar in Oregon and play lotto is something I think is incredibly silly and a waste of time. But if only gay people were allowed in and straight people were denied, why, I might think that a tad discriminatory and defend the right of the straight people to gamble their savings away even if I thought it was pretty darn dumb.
Posted by spartacus]]>
Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:09:49 -0800Portland Mercury
thanks for a savvy chuckle (from both my husband and myself; he turned me on to you!).

as for the same sex marriage thing... i don't have statistics running around in my head, but i am of the opinion that unions are about LOVE. PERIOD. in my little circle of friends, the most stable, consistent and long-lasting relationships, are, across the board, my gay and lesbian friends. need a second opinion? ask their kids! i will admit it, as a heterosexual, that i HOPE my relationship is as enduring.
OK, i'll get off my soapbox now.

your eloquence never ceases to amaze me, mr savage.... i think there are people in our country who are in a much more public eye than I, who could stand to be enlightened on a thing or ten by your words of wisdom!